Jayaraj vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Trichy, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, it shall be entertained by the appellate authority without reference to the period of limitation and disposed of in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Facts

The petitioner, Jayaraj, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 24.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for the tax period 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to consider their entitlement to exemptions and took stringent actions, including freezing bank accounts of the petitioner and their clients. The petitioner also argued that the supplier's failure to generate an e-way bill was beyond the buyer's control and that extensions under the COVID-19 amnesty period were not considered. The respondent revenue authority pointed out that the petitioner had an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST).

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 24.08.2024, passed by the respondent for the year 2019-2020, is liable to be quashed on the grounds that the respondent failed to consider the petitioner's entitlement to exemptions and privileges, including extensions granted under the COVID-19 amnesty period, and that the order was passed without regard to the fact that the failure to generate an e-way bill was beyond the buyer's control? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and GST provisions related to exemptions and e-way bills). Petitioner's Arguments: The respondent erred by not considering the petitioner's exemptions and privileges, including COVID-19 amnesty period extensions. The failure of the supplier to generate an e-way bill, which was beyond the buyer's control, should have been taken into account, rendering the impugned order liable for setting aside. Respondent's Arguments: The petitioner has an available statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Trichy, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.